Quebec Election Thread

[Grey Fox]

We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.

73 conversative mps? That's crazy!

Hardly.  I see no reason why the Conservatives shouldn't win every seat in a province.

There is already such a place, usually refered to the United States of America. They even have no federal GST.

I was making an Alberta joke.

Ah. It flew over head.

But don't you have a NDP mp in South Eastern Edmonton?

[Grey Fox]

We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.

73 conversative mps? That's crazy!

Hardly.  I see no reason why the Conservatives shouldn't win every seat in a province.

There is already such a place, usually refered to the United States of America. They even have no federal GST.

Bah, There isnt a US politician alive who knows how to balance the books.

5% federal VAT, is all they need.

[crazy canuck]

But don't you have a NDP mp in South Eastern Edmonton?

It is Edmonton, so normally  it can be safely ignored for all purposes.  However, in this case we can blame Neil and so you make a very good point.

[Grey Fox]

Does Neil vote? He probably doesn't.

[alfred russel]

Except that theory does not hold with what actually happened.  The local population started out being, on the whole pro American because, as Malthus already pointed out, the population had a large percentage of Americans and there was a very small percentage of Tories within that group.  The Americans crossed the border not as liberators but as conquerors.  If they had come as liberators the war would have gone very differently in Canada.

Poorly trained Napoleonic era armies rough with the locals when campaigning in a foreign country? I think that was inevitable. Hell, armies of that era were perfectly capable of alienating their own people when stationed among them.

[Malthus]

Except that theory does not hold with what actually happened.  The local population started out being, on the whole pro American because, as Malthus already pointed out, the population had a large percentage of Americans and there was a very small percentage of Tories within that group.  The Americans crossed the border not as liberators but as conquerors.  If they had come as liberators the war would have gone very differently in Canada.

Poorly trained Napoleonic era armies rough with the locals when campaigning in a foreign country? I think that was inevitable. Hell, armies of that era were perfectly capable of alienating their own people when stationed among them.

They could generally be relied on not to burn down their own cities though.  It was the arson - at York and what became Niagra on the lake (then known as Newark) - that really annoyed people. The latter in particular was allegedly carried out on direct orders, not by ill-disciplined troops (unlike the burning of York).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Fort_Niagara#Burning_of_Newark

Earlier in the year, the United States Secretary of War, John Armstrong, had given permission to destroy the nearby village of Newark if it became necessary to prevent British troops finding cover close to Fort George. The inhabitants were to be given several days' notice, and care was to be taken that they were not to be left destitute.[5] As the Americans abandoned Fort George, the order was unaccountably given to burn down the village without warning, leaving the inhabitants without shelter or possessions in the depths of winter. Part of the village of Queenston was also torched. It was alleged that the pro-American Canadian Volunteers performed most of the destruction.

This action was undoubtedly contrary to the conventions which governed warfare at the time, although several similar acts had already been committed by both sides during the war. The burning of Newark was to be the pretext for the British to carry out several outrages later.

One detail I found amusing was that the burning of York was allegedly partly inspired by the discovery of a "scalp" in the Legislative Assembly by American troops (proving British barbarism - presumably, the legislators had obtained it by enouraging their native allies in scalping Yanks).

Only problem: the "scalp" was the Speaker's official Wig! 

[alfred russel]

Shit happens. I doubt the Americans during 1812/1813 were harsher on Canada than the Russians on their own citizens during the same time period.

[Malthus]

Shit happens. I doubt the Americans during 1812/1813 were harsher on Canada than the Russians on their own citizens during the same time period.

Sure, but giving civilians the good old 19th century Cossack treatment isn't the best possible way to convince them of your republican goodness, and convince them to side with you. 

This would not be an issue, were it not for the fact that pro-American sentiments were in fact widespread in Canada prior to the war. Not so much after. Which is why the war is significant for Canadians - once they *did* in effect achieve local autonomy, there was little sentiment to join the US as states. Had the war not occured, this would presumably have been a stronger possibility.

[alfred russel]

Sure, but giving civilians the good old 19th century Cossack treatment isn't the best possible way to convince them of your republican goodness, and convince them to side with you. 

This would not be an issue, were it not for the fact that pro-American sentiments were in fact widespread in Canada prior to the war. Not so much after. Which is why the war is significant for Canadians - once they *did* in effect achieve local autonomy, there was little sentiment to join the US as states. Had the war not occured, this would presumably have been a stronger possibility.

It wasn't just the Cossack treatment--my understanding is that the French army was also quite hard on its own citizens when the fighting got there.

What I am trying to get at is that is the American army/militias of the time period could only aspire to have the discipline of their European counterparts. Unless you really like the cause they were fighting for, you were going to be alienated when an early 19th century army strolled into town. The problem wasn't the conduct of the Americans in Canada so much--they were doing what armies do for the most part--it was the Canadians didn't sufficiently hate British tyranny to overlook their abuses.

[CountDeMoney]

One dead confirmed, one injured.

You people are crazy up there.

[Malthus]

It wasn't just the Cossack treatment--my understanding is that the French army was also quite hard on its own citizens when the fighting got there.

What I am trying to get at is that is the American army/militias of the time period could only aspire to have the discipline of their European counterparts. Unless you really like the cause they were fighting for, you were going to be alienated when an early 19th century army strolled into town. The problem wasn't the conduct of the Americans in Canada so much--they were doing what armies do for the most part--it was the Canadians didn't sufficiently hate British tyranny to overlook their abuses.

I don't think the history supports this interpretation. Neither of the two outrages in issue were the result of typical troop ill-discipline.

In the case of York, a popular general and 250 of his men had just been blown up by a ruse, so the troops getting out of hand was more understandable - they had just suffered what they considered a war crime. In the case of Newark, the place was deliberately burned down on orders.

The Newark case was pure official stupidity.  The York case was an example of a commanding general unable to control his troops after suffering a disaster.

[alfred russel]

I don't think the history supports this interpretation. Neither of the two outrages in issue were the result of typical troop ill-discipline.

In the case of York, a popular general and 250 of his men had just been blown up by a ruse, so the troops getting out of hand was more understandable - they had just suffered what they considered a war crime. In the case of Newark, the place was deliberately burned down on orders.

The Newark case was pure official stupidity.  The York case was an example of a commanding general unable to control his troops after suffering a disaster.

I think we have to agree to disagree. Any single incident can be explained as a one off, but in th era we are talking about it seems more likely than not that an offensive into Canada would have a few unsavory incidents.

[crazy canuck]

Man Charest looks beat up.  I dont know why anyone would pick politician as a vocation.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think the history supports this interpretation. Neither of the two outrages in issue were the result of typical troop ill-discipline.

In the case of York, a popular general and 250 of his men had just been blown up by a ruse, so the troops getting out of hand was more understandable - they had just suffered what they considered a war crime. In the case of Newark, the place was deliberately burned down on orders.

The Newark case was pure official stupidity.  The York case was an example of a commanding general unable to control his troops after suffering a disaster.

I think we have to agree to disagree. Any single incident can be explained as a one off, but in th era we are talking about it seems more likely than not that an offensive into Canada would have a few unsavory incidents.

You might have a listen to this at about 18:50-20:45.  It is an historians description of how the Americans' practice of burning farms building and fields turned the recent American immigrants in Southern Ontario - who outnumbered the Tory loyalists 6-1 - from friend to foe.

These activities were not a one off.  If they were then there would be no nation in North America about to balance their budget.

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2247181474

[Neil]

Man Charest looks beat up.  I dont know why anyone would pick politician as a vocation.

Maybe his mob buddies beat him up for real for failing them.